ArticleScientific reports2024
Automated neonatal nnU-Net brain MRI extractor trained on a large multi-institutional dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- From oxidative stress to epigenetic regulation: Molecular mechanisms of preterm brain injury and neuroprotective strategies (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Clinical validation pipeline of a deep learning model for segmenting and quantifying intracranial and ventricular volumes on computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Baby Open Brains: An open-source dataset of infant brain segmentations.Scientific data · 2025Article
- An Innovative Medical Image Analyzer Incorporating Fuzzy Approaches to Support Medical Decision-Making.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Baby Open Brains: An Open-Source Repository of Infant Brain Segmentations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Automated pediatric brain tumor imaging assessment tool from CBTN: Enhancing suprasellar region inclusion and managing limited data with deep learning.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain extraction, or skull-stripping, is an essential data preprocessing step for machine learning approaches to brain MRI analysis. Currently, there are limited extraction algorithms for the neonatal brain. We aim to adapt an established deep learning algorithm for the automatic segmentation of neonatal brains from MRI, trained on a large multi-institutional dataset for improved generalizability across image acquisition parameters. Our model, ANUBEX (automated neonatal nnU-Net brain MRI extractor), was designed using nnU-Net and was trained on a subset of participants (N = 433) enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) study. We compared the performance of our model to five publicly available models (BET, BSE, CABINET, iBEATv2, ROBEX) across conventional and machine learning methods, tested on two public datasets (NIH and dHCP). We found that our model had a significantly higher Dice score on the aggregate of both data sets and comparable or significantly higher Dice scores on the NIH (low-resolution) and dHCP (high-resolution) datasets independently. ANUBEX performs similarly when trained on sequence-agnostic or motion-degraded MRI, but slightly worse on preterm brains. In conclusion, we created an automatic deep learning-based neonatal brain extraction algorithm that demonstrates accurate performance with both high- and low-resolution MRIs with fast computation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.